Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Big Bang was the result of some quantum fizzo or the collision of two or more alternate dimensions or the belch of the cosmic turtle ... fine. But where did the quantum fizzo and the alternate dimensions and the cosmic turtle come from?
Quantum physics may be able to push "the beginning" beyond the Big Bang. But it still fails to answer the Ultimate Question: What was the First Cause?
Was there a first cause? Or has the multiverse always existed?
It depends on what you consider "absolute nothing". There's nothing in quantum mechanics that precludes an entire expanding universe popping into existence out of a vacuum.
I'm trying to be clear about what I mean by 'absolute nothing.' When I say absolute nothing, I mean not even the existence of zero point energy. That vacuum energy is something. I know that negative energy cancels out positive energy leaving net zero, but in reality that vacuum energy is the something that has to have always existed. If those random quantum fluctuations hadn't always been occurring, then there is no way the universe could have popped into existence.
I'm trying to be clear about what I mean by 'absolute nothing.' When I say absolute nothing, I mean not even the existence of zero point energy. That vacuum energy is something. I know that negative energy cancels out positive energy leaving net zero, but in reality that vacuum energy is the something that has to have always existed. If those random quantum fluctuations hadn't always been occurring, then there is no way the universe could have popped into existence.
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
Then we're in agreement that something has always existed. While there are physicists who don't agree with the idea of a multiverse, I think it's reasonable to assume the existence, or at least the possible existence of other universes. I'll check into that book you mentioned. I'm thinking of getting Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing. I've listened to him lecture on it on YouTube.
The Science of Empty Space looks good. I'll see if I can get it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-02-2019 at 05:14 PM..
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.
So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.
For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.
I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.
So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.
For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.
I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.
Physicists come up with models in an attempt explain something. Not to explain away. Some models actually predict a multiverse as a logical result of the theory. The eternal inflation model originated by physicist Alan Guth logically predicts an endless succession of 'big bang' events resulting in ever increasing numbers of universes.
Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.
So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.
For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.
I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.
Well I said in the limited context of our Universe's linear time. There's no guarantee that the origin point of our Universe had linear time, so saying "forever" may actually be meaningless. For all we know it existed in some type of infinite quantum loop outside of time. But fair enough. Trying to prove the existence of God has thus far proven fruitless; demonstrating that other Universes exist may still be feasible. If another Universe is discovered, may we call it a Multiverse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
